AAAAAAAARRRRRGH!!!
Scott Lowther
In short:
1: Driving home on highway (~50 mph).
2: Dog dashes out of roadside weeds
3: Hit dog square... no time to brake or dodge, as it's a 2-lane and
there was oncoming traffic.
4: Dog is... well... not ready for prime time family viewing.
5: Stopped car 100 or so yards down the road, turned around
6: Stop next to dog.
7: See family gathering outside of house on other side of road (it was a
LOUD bang on impact)
8: Start walking to family.
9: They all point to house on side of street I'm
10: Go to house, knock on door (after working my way past 1/2 dozen cats)
11: Woman opens door, sees dog in road, starts bawling.
D'oh.
12: "That was my husbands dog."
D'oh.
13: "My husband just died a month ago."
*D'OH!!!*
In the end, carried dog out of road (after telling her not to look), hid
it behind a parked car. She went inside to call a friend of hers to come
and bury the dog for her.
Yay.
The car is a bit tore up... impact messed up a heavy plastic shield on
the underside, just behind the bumper. Dog wasn't very big (not real big
on dog breed... looked kinda like a subscale, meaty doberman or something).
I now have a better understanding of the anatomy of dogs, but I believe
I would have preferred to gain this info by surfing "doginnards.com"
rather than doing it myself.
Gah. Indeed, gah.
Sabine Baer
> Well, today seems to have gone downhill.
>
> In short:
> 1: Driving home on highway (~50 mph).
[...]
> 4: Dog is... well... not ready for prime time family viewing.
Be glad he was dead immidiatly.
> 8: Start walking to family.
> 9: They all point to house on side of street I'm
> 10: Go to house, knock on door (after working my way past 1/2 dozen cats)
You have roads between houses where 50 mph are allowed?
> 12: "That was my husbands dog."
> 13: "My husband just died a month ago."
Well, he followed his master.
[...]
> Gah. Indeed, gah.
Really not an adventuer on seeks.
BTW what about the horse, does it well?
Sabine
--
"Wissenschaftlich betrachtet wird das Häuschen kaputt sein."
(Th. Waschke in dswc auf die Frage eines wissenschftlich
Interessierten, was mit einem Holzhaus, in dem eine Atombombe
gezuendet wird, passiere.)
Scott Lowther
>>4: Dog is... well... not ready for prime time family viewing.
>>
>>
>
>Be glad he was dead immidiatly.
>
>
Yes. She was, to be blunt, spilled open from belly button to backbone; I
can only hope that her head - which seemed intact - got a good enough
knock to put her down in a flash.
>You have roads between houses where 50 mph are allowed?
>
>
55, actually.
>
>
>
>>12: "That was my husbands dog."
>>13: "My husband just died a month ago."
>>
>>
>
>Well, he followed his master.
>
>
Actaully, that's pretty much what *she* said. "They are together now."
The first thign that flashed across my mind was the fundamentalist view
that while humans have souls, dogs don't, but it seemed that it'd be
less than kind to say sucha thing. My own view is that if humans have
souls, pretty much most other mammals probably do too.
>[...]
>
>
>
>>Gah. Indeed, gah.
>>
>>
>
>Really not an adventuer on seeks.
>
>
>
No. It was not the high point of the day.
>BTW what about the horse, does it well?
>
Actaully, yeah, Eclipse seems to be doing pretty well. Fattening up
nicely, hangs out with the sheep. Not terribly personable, now that I no
longer offer goodies to eat. But it's quite something to see her
suddenly decide she needs to be 300 feet away and leap off at full speed
and slam to a halt inches from the wire.
Sabine Baer
> Yes. She was, to be blunt, spilled open from belly button to backbone; I
> can only hope that her head - which seemed intact - got a good enough
> knock to put her down in a flash.
> 55, actually.
I was wrong, I thout that 50 mph are >100 km/h.
> Actaully, that's pretty much what *she* said. "They are together
> now." The first thign that flashed across my mind was the
> fundamentalist view that while humans have souls, dogs don't, but it
> seemed that it'd be less than kind to say sucha thing. My own view
> is that if humans have souls, pretty much most other mammals
> probably do too.
well, it helps the remaining to think so.
I'm sure the dog my family owned when I was a child is in the dog's
heaven now :-)
[...]
> Actaully, yeah, Eclipse seems to be doing pretty well. Fattening up
> nicely, hangs out with the sheep. Not terribly personable, now that
> I no longer offer goodies to eat. But it's quite something to see
> her suddenly decide she needs to be 300 feet away and leap off at
> full speed and slam to a halt inches from the wire.
:-)
aehm, barbed wire? <duck>
Romauld
: I was wrong, I thout that 50 mph are >100 km/h.
I've not driven a km car in a few years, but IIRC the 100km/h
mark is around the 60mph mark.
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
All Pagans who think of themselves as Elders should read this:
http://www.partiallyclips.com/pages/archive.php?id=1021&b=1
PSn
these highways have houses on them; but these are rural homes and long
straightaways. High visibility and such, so the danger is usually minimal.
"Romauld" <tr...@necrotheque.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrndb2d5...@necrotheque.demon.co.uk...
Scott Lowther
>>Actaully, yeah, Eclipse seems to be doing pretty well. Fattening up
>>nicely, hangs out with the sheep. Not terribly personable, now that
>>I no longer offer goodies to eat. But it's quite something to see
>>her suddenly decide she needs to be 300 feet away and leap off at
>>full speed and slam to a halt inches from the wire.
>>
>>
>
>:-)
>
>aehm, barbed wire? <duck>
>
Yes. Standard fence material around here.
Scott Lowther
>Out where I live, the highway traffic speed averages 65-75 mph, and many of
>these highways have houses on them; but these are rural homes and long
>straightaways. High visibility and such, so the danger is usually minimal.
>
That's about what it is here, except that the farms go right to the edge
of the roads. Lot's of hidin' places wihin feet of the road.
PSn
"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
news:8lese.941$yg4...@news01.roc.ny...
Sabine Baer
> Yeah, cows and horses don't read signs too well.
Just one example from many.
Barbed wire is fine to cows but a horse sometimes will not 'slam to a
halt inches from the wire'.
Sabine
--
Good public health practice requires day-to-day vigilance, constant
and elevated funding, not a disease-of-the-week approach. (N.N.)
PSn
the folks here. They'll do crazy crap sometimes. They'll mix horse herds
with cow herds and apply barbed wire excessively-- and then they'll
electrify it when that doesn't work.
Let's face it, the backwoods of Georgia is not where you go to seek arcane
knowledge and intelligent discourse.. I'm leaving in August.. whoo..
"Sabine Baer" <bae...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d8tti1$3g7$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
Noodles Jefferson
> the backwoods of Georgia
The Girl would give most anything to get back to her hot, humid South.
She hates the cool, dry weather here in S. Cal., especially during May
Gray and June Gloom. At 270 pounds, a return to the South would be
hellish for me, so I'm hoping to compromise on a move inland or to the
low desert when I can no longer stall a move....
Eric
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Grossly obese!!!
PSn
newsgroup.
<lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1119039261.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > At 270 pounds
>
> Grossly obese!!!
>
Noodles Jefferson
Scott Lowther
Scott Lowther
Arts And Crafts Contest Announcement!
PABAAH is proud to announce that we are sponsoring the first annual
"Create A Pig With The Koran" "papier mache" contest!
The requirement for all entries is that the material used for all
entries must be comprised of pages from the Islamic Book Of Peace (or is
it Piece, as in body pieces?). Originality in design will carry great
weight with the judges. Entries must be photographed and submitted by
August 1, 2005. The winning entry will be auctioned off on our site,
with the proceeds to be split evenly between the winning artist and a
charity benefitting the children of those American soldiers killed in
action fighting the War on Terror.
Papier Mache How To: http://www.papiermache.co.uk/
Get Your Free Koran: http://freequran.org/index.php
el_barbaro...@lycos.com
guts on the doorstep of a local synagogue. One never knows how far
bigotry will go, but fun's fun, right?
Eric
el_barbaro...@lycos.com
posted a list of Jewish, black, and "non-white" winners of the Medal of
Honor, and asked the bigots what made them think they had any right to
deny others respect due to race or religion.
Scott posted:
> > "Create A Pig With The Koran" "papier mache" contest!
> The winning entry will be auctioned off on our site,
> with the proceeds to be split evenly between the winning artist and a
> charity benefitting the children of those American soldiers killed in
> action fighting the War on Terror.
>From alt.muslim:
"If you ever visit Arlington National Cemetery, as many are doing on
this Memorial Day, you may notice that every now and then, a crescent
pops up among the field of crosses. Few Americans are aware that many
American Muslims have fought and died in the US Armed Forces, including
in Iraq. When you wander the cemetery grounds that overlook Washington,
DC, you'll notice the grave of Army Captain Humayun Khan, who lured a
suicide car bomb away from the men in his charge, saving their lives
but giving up his own. You might also come across the grave of Army
Spc. Rasheed Sahib, an American Muslim from Guyana who was killed in
Iraq as well, under mysterious circumstances. And then there's Army
Spc. Omead Razani, a son of Iranian immigrants who also died in Iraq.
Also, Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey was killed in a
helicopter crash on his way to duty in Iraq. In fact, you'll find the
graves of fallen Muslim soldiers and Muslim veterans in military
cemeteries all over the United States, from Hassein Ahmed (Army, WWII)
to Ibrahim Muhammad (Navy, WWII), from Mahir Hasan (Army, Korea) to
Abul Fateh Umar Khan (Air Force, Korea)."
I wonder what sort of note these proud and heroic papier-mache bigot
punks would send to the families of Moslem "American soldiers killed in
action fighting the War on Terror"?
Eric
"The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that
certain other sets of people are human", Aldous Huxley
el_barbaro...@lycos.com wrote:
> The racist serial killer Franklin started out as a teen by pouring pig
> guts on the doorstep of a local synagogue. One never knows how far
> bigotry will go, but fun's fun, right?
>
> Eric
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
> > http://www.pabaah.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=954
> >
> > Arts And Crafts Contest Announcement!
> >
> > PABAAH is proud to announce that we are sponsoring the first annual
> > "Create A Pig With The Koran" "papier mache" contest!
el_barbaro...@lycos.com
desecrations to cemetary desecrations. The same for anti-Moslem bigots?
Have any of them demonstrated the heroism of Humayun Khan?
http://www.amafandvac.org/article.php?story=20040613075402478
>From the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran's Affairs Council
His family says Capt. Humayun Khan, a Muslim and an American, loved his
country and the military. He also believed strongly that peace would be
the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq.
Khan did not live to see that outcome.
The Department of Defense announced the 27-year-old was killed Tuesday
in Baquabah, Iraq. It happened when suicide bombers drove into an
American compound while Khan was inspecting soldiers on guard duty.
Khan, who lived in Bristow, is the 20th Virginian to die in Iraq.
"Instead of running, he stood foward to the oncoming taxi to prevent it
from going inside," said Shahrayar Khan, who is 11 months older than
his brother. "Even being in Iraq, surrounded by moral peril, I knew he
would do the right thing. That he was there to protect and to save
lives."
Flowers and condolences have been arriving at Khan's family home since
Wednesday.
The family says Khan was originally scheduled to be home by now, but
his stay in Iraq was extended by the military's stop loss program. He
last spoke with his mother on May 10, Mother's Day.
"I told him, 'Be safe, please be safe for me.' He said, 'Mother, I am
safe. I just have a responsibility for my soldiers,'" said Gazala Khan,
Humayun's mother.
Born in the United Arab Emirates, Khan grew up in Silver Spring, Md.,
and graduated from Kennedy High School in 1996. His family says he
joined the ROTC to pay for law school.
His youngest brother describes Khan as a gregarious man who loved
basketball.
Being both American and Muslim, his family says Humayun was well liked
in Iraq, where he was seen as a bridge between two cultures at war.
Khan's body is at Dover Air Force Base. His family says he will be
buried next week at Arlington National Cemetery
Scott Lowther
>The racist serial killer Franklin started out as a teen by pouring pig
>guts on the doorstep of a local synagogue.
>
Wh\ow. Doi you actually think that doing cheesy art with your own
property on your own property is actually akin to putting biohazardous
waste on someone *elses* property? No wonder you're a Dem.
Scott Lowther
>blah, blah, blah
Boy, you sure don't like freedom of speech when it's not on your side,
do ya!
Scott Lowther
>http://www.amafandvac.org/article.php?story=20040613075402478
>
>>From the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran's Affairs Council
>
>His family says Capt. Humayun Khan, a Muslim and an American, loved his
>country and the military. He also believed strongly that peace would be
>the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq.
>
Clearly he was a Neo-Con. Prolly even a closet *JEW*!!!
PSn
places.
It's their version of "cheesy art" with their own property on their own
property.
"Scott Lowther" <scottl...@ix.netcom.SPAMBLOK.com> wrote in message
news:MOite.1454$3E7...@news02.roc.ny...
PSn
<el_barbaro...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1119205100....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Lowther
>KKK today burns crosses on their own lawns, instead of black people's
>places.
>
>It's their version of "cheesy art" with their own property on their own
>property.
>
And they should be free to do so. Others should be equally free to point
and laugh.
Scott Lowther
>We know how Scott despises veterans
>
On the whole: not at all. It's the veterans who try to use their vet
status as a way to buy themselves more honor than they deserve whom I
despise.
quiquirib...@yahoo.com
But on the central issues- religious bigotry and expression of the
same, not to mention even the choice of a pig- yes.
Contrary to the implication of your replies, I didn't urge that the
thing be banned. I do think it shows religious bigotry, and similar
bigotry has led already to violence against Moslem property and
Moslems. I think such coarse bigots are an embarrassment, and do wonder
where else their hatred will take them. Franklin didn't start by
killing mixed couples. He started with hatred of racial and religious
groups.
How could a grown man with a shred of decency feel good about the fear
and hatred he would place into the hearts of innocent Moslem families
with this "contest", and if such a man does feel good about that, how
far a step is it to violence against those men, women, and children? As
many have already shown, not far at all.
Eric
quiquirib...@yahoo.com
conspiracy theorists?
Express the insinuation in your "humor" openly and clearly.
And meantime, you seem to have- in this "humor"- evaded the issue at
hand, namely, that Moslems are fighting and dying in this war just like
other Americans, and so the anti-Moslem bigotry of making papier-mache
pigs from KOrans and then sending money to help the families of the
fallen is contradictory as well as plainly contemptable and unmanly.
Eric
quiquirib...@yahoo.com
service on the scales in reply. All the other twists and turns you have
placed on the issue have been deceptive.
You have been similarly dismissive of McCain's service and sacrifice,
and also because you oppose him politically.
Eric
lex...@ix.netcom.com
and hatred he would place into the hearts of innocent Moslem families
with this "contest",
How can a grwon man consider thaqt papier mache pigs will inspire
honest fear?
> how far a step is it to violence against those men, women, and children?
Ye gods, you're right! We shoudl stop papier mache at all costs. They
even do it in grade school! What's next? Finger paint?
lex...@ix.netcom.com
other Americans, and so the anti-Moslem bigotry of making papier-mache
pigs from KOrans and then sending money to help the families of the
fallen is contradictory
Not so. There have been communists, socialists and fascists in the
American military as well. But the fact that they can support their
country over their wacky belief systems does not mean that their wacky
belief systems are to be protected from ridicule.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Indeed so. Since we *are* at war, and your preferred alternates would
have the US on it's knees before an enemy that would happily kill *you*
as a pagan... yeah, I can see some patriotism issues with you.
> You have been similarly dismissive of McCain's service and sacrifice,
and also because you oppose him politically.
Incorrect. I do not dismiss his service. I simply see him as something
of a loon, and one with wishy-washy politics.
liber...@lycos.com
Among people who have been attacked and killed on the basis of their
religion, quite right. How do you think a 10-year-old Moslem American
would react to middle-aged men acting in such a way, given the social
context?
Anyway, Scott, by now I have learned you'll not be swayed from such
bigotry-as-fun. If your time is best spent in such endeavors, so be it.
> Ye gods, you're right! We shoudl stop papier mache at all costs. They
> even do it in grade school! What's next? Finger paint?
Of course, papier mache isn't the issue. Nor, if finger paint were used
to send a message of religious bigotry. The message, not the medium, is
my concern. Surely you get that?
> Not so. There have been communists, socialists and fascists in the
> American military as well. But the fact that they can support their
> country over their wacky belief systems does not mean that their wacky
> belief systems are to be protected from ridicule.
As far as I know, no one but you has raised the issue of anyone being
"protected from ridicule". What has been raised is the simple fact that
such bigoted behavior is reprehensible. If you wish others to deal with
such adolescent, mean-spirited, unmanly behavior as making pigs from
the religious books of others, you will have to accept such criticism
as I level, just as our a.r.a. nazis shouldn't always scream like stuck
pigs when people reply to their petty viciousness.
> Indeed so. Since we *are* at war, and your preferred alternates would
> have the US on it's knees before an enemy that would happily kill *you*
> as a pagan... yeah, I can see some patriotism issues with you.
Having spent much of my adult life in Moslem countries, I'm still very
much a living heathen. You've known- did you say?- four Moslems. I've
known hundreds.
Nor, for Pete's sake, was pathetic, crippled Iraq even remotely capable
of having "the US on its knees".
And- with a malicious smile- thhhhbbbbb. Your judgments on patriotism
are as meaningful as a maggot's on hygeine.
> Incorrect. I do not dismiss his service. I simply see him as something
> of a loon, and one with wishy-washy politics.
Didn't you call his service- Naval aviator in wartime, POW- merely a
"job"?
Eric
Scott Lowther
>>papier mache pigs will inspire honest fear?
>>
>>
>
>Among people who have been attacked and killed on the basis of their
>religion, quite right.
>
Interesting. How many American Muslims have been killed by American
non-Muslims on the basis of their religion... as compared to how many
Muslims world-wide have killed *others* based on their religion?
> How do you think a 10-year-old Moslem American
>would react to middle-aged men acting in such a way, given the social
>context?
>
>
Better than the 10-year old non-Moslem American son of someone who had
his head sawed off live on Al Jazeera.
>Anyway, Scott, by now I have learned you'll not be swayed from such
>bigotry-as-fun. If your time is best spent in such endeavors, so be it.
>
>
Who said I'm doing anything with this?
>Of course, papier mache isn't the issue. Nor, if finger paint were used
>to send a message of religious bigotry. The message, not the medium, is
>my concern.
>
The message: those who idolize a particyualr violent, misogynistic,
anti-semetic and backwards book are fun to laugh at.
>As far as I know, no one but you has raised the issue of anyone being
>"protected from ridicule". What has been raised is the simple fact that
>such bigoted behavior is reprehensible.
>
Compared to what? There are lots of things people can spend their time
on. Having a little harmless fun at the expense of a death cult seems
pretty tame to me.
>
>
>>Indeed so. Since we *are* at war, and your preferred alternates would
>>have the US on it's knees before an enemy that would happily kill *you*
>>as a pagan... yeah, I can see some patriotism issues with you.
>>
>>
>
>Having spent much of my adult life in Moslem countries, I'm still very
>much a living heathen.
>
And did you raise a heathen flag, try to set up a heathen shrine?
>Nor, for Pete's sake, was pathetic, crippled Iraq even remotely capable
>of having "the US on its knees".
>
>
Nobody but you has even suggested as much.
>>Incorrect. I do not dismiss his service. I simply see him as something
>>of a loon, and one with wishy-washy politics.
>>
>>
>
>Didn't you call his service- Naval aviator in wartime, POW- merely a
>"job"?
>
Nope. i asked YOU to explain in simple terms why YOUR expereicne wasn't
more than a job. You repeatedly refused to do so.
PSn
> Better than the 10-year old non-Moslem American son of someone who had
> his head sawed off live on Al Jazeera.
>
NOTE: Al-Jazeera has never aired a beheading video, not even clips. All
videos were posted directly by terrorists on their own websites, and
Al-Jazeera has refused to show them.
NOTE: FOX News has. Repeatedly. As have several other American news
outlets.
> >Of course, papier mache isn't the issue. Nor, if finger paint were used
> >to send a message of religious bigotry. The message, not the medium, is
> >my concern.
> >
> The message: those who idolize a particyualr violent, misogynistic,
> anti-semetic and backwards book are fun to laugh at.
>
Actually, the message, as I understand how you've been treating the issue
is: "Our culture is the only one worthy of respect. We are superior and
they are inferior."
Take your racism off a.r.a.
>
> >As far as I know, no one but you has raised the issue of anyone being
> >"protected from ridicule". What has been raised is the simple fact that
> >such bigoted behavior is reprehensible.
> >
>
> Compared to what? There are lots of things people can spend their time
> on. Having a little harmless fun at the expense of a death cult seems
> pretty tame to me.
Compared to Civilized behavior. THAT is the standard. The standard is to
act CIVILIZED, not "We're not as bad as they are! Neener neener neener!"
> >Nor, for Pete's sake, was pathetic, crippled Iraq even remotely capable
> >of having "the US on its knees".
> >
> >
>
> Nobody but you has even suggested as much.
>
You have. You were sayiing the country we are currently at war with had the
capability to bring us to our knees and kill heathens with impunity.
Scott Lowther
>>Better than the 10-year old non-Moslem American son of someone who had
>>his head sawed off live on Al Jazeera.
>>
>>
>>
>
>NOTE: Al-Jazeera has never aired a beheading video, not even clips. All
>videos were posted directly by terrorists on their own websites, and
>Al-Jazeera has refused to show them.
>
>NOTE: FOX News has. Repeatedly.
>
GOOD FOR THEM!!!
>
>
>>>Of course, papier mache isn't the issue. Nor, if finger paint were used
>>>to send a message of religious bigotry. The message, not the medium, is
>>>my concern.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The message: those who idolize a particyualr violent, misogynistic,
>>anti-semetic and backwards book are fun to laugh at.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the message, as I understand how you've been treating the issue
>is: "Our culture is the only one worthy of respect. We are superior and
>they are inferior."
>
>
ERRRR. Wrong again, skippy. Ever hear me bitch about the Indians, the
Aussies, the Zulu? Nope. Nevertheless, the Islamic culture *is* one to
keep an eye on.
>Take your racism off a.r.a.
>
>
Oh, goody! Now "Muslim" is a race, is it?
>Compared to Civilized behavior. THAT is the standard. The standard is to
>act CIVILIZED
>
That's a wonderful sentiment that just doesn;t hold up when confronted
with stark barbarians. The Japanese weren't beaten through angry letters
and stern talkings-to, but by bombing them beyond the ability to put up
a decent defense.
>You have. You were sayiing the country we are currently at war with had the
>capability to bring us to our knees
>
ERRR. Work on those reading comprehension skills. Where did I say
"country?" We are at war. And not just with a particular nation. Those
days are over. Wake up and smell the 21st century.
Sabine Baer
[...]
> ERRRR. Wrong again, skippy. Ever hear me bitch about the Indians, the
> Aussies, the Zulu? Nope. Nevertheless, the Islamic culture *is* one to
> keep an eye on.
Yes indeed. Me, I am dreaming I will go on a journey to Andalucia
sometime.
Sabine
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
> Interesting. How many American Muslims have been killed by American
> non-Muslims on the basis of their religion... as compared to how many
> Muslims world-wide have killed *others* based on their religion?
This is simply diversionary and obfuscatory.
1. You choose to see the issue as Moslems v. non-Moslems. While this is
certainly the way extremists on both "sides" choose to see it, it is
not the reality. Moslems are killed by Moslems, non-Moslems by Moslems,
one kills the other, as with any identity-group. In this thread I have
posted about Moslems fighting heroically for the US in Iraq. The
reality is far more complex than this simplistic Us-Good-Non-Moslems,
Them-Bad-Moslems.
2. The issue, then, is the effect of this papier-mache Koran-pig, which
is what we are talking about. This generalized smear against Moslems no
more brings justice to Moslems and non-Moslems killed by Moslems or
non-Moslems than did lynching a random black man bring justice to a
rape victim. It's not a major issue. Just disgusting like the neo-nazi
posts in a.r.a.
3. Since Moslems in general are no more to blame for the crimes of
Jihadists than you and I are to blame for the Jasper, Texas racial
murder simply because we are white, or to blame for the crimes of David
Lane because we also call to Norse gods, the Koran-pig is a despicable
smear of the innocent by cowardly men.
> > How do you think a 10-year-old Moslem American
> >would react to middle-aged men acting in such a way, given the social
> >context?
> >
> Better than the 10-year old non-Moslem American son of someone who had
> his head sawed off live on Al Jazeera.
AJ covered by PSn. As for the other, these are not the choices- I
condemn both, and the Koran-pig in no way solves the beheadings. Your
answer is evasive. We are talking about the Koran-pig. No one here, so
far as I have seen, has lauded the beheadings. Yet you have cheered on
Koran-pig.
Quite obviously, on the scale of things the Koran-pig is insignificant
compared to the beheadings. Yet, let's take your logic as a Moslem
extremist might. Of the beheadings, "Better than the 10-year-old
Moslems bombed by the US, and the sons of the tens of thousands killed
by the US." It's a stupid argument, as is yours.
If a few beheadings are "not as bad as" tens of thousands dead, they
are still horrible. And if the religious bigotry that is the topic is
"not as bad as" the beheadings, it's still pathetic, mean-spirited
bigotry.
> >Having spent much of my adult life in Moslem countries, I'm still very
> >much a living heathen.
>
> And did you raise a heathen flag, try to set up a heathen shrine?
As in most Christian countries until quite recently, most Islamic
countries place restrictions on the public practice of many religions.
This varies from nation tonation, even from city to city or
neighborhood to neighborhood. I felt quite free in the UAE, quite
restricted in Saudi Arabia. Until the effects of the Enlightenment took
hold in the West, in fact, Islam was generally more tolerant of other
religions than the West.
As in Texas, where heathens have faced-off with rabid mobs of
fundamentalist Christians and just as seen in the public comments of
the Republican Falwell, many Moslems are intolerant of other religions.
As with the Texas Republican Party platform calling for a "Christian
Nation" and Creationism, many Moslems believe all other religions
should have a secondary status.
But from this basic fact to the notion that Moslems in general want to
kill me for being heathen is a fearful and foolish conclusion. I have
spoken about religion in depth with Moslems, many of whom have close
relationships with Sikhs and Hindus as well, who are tolerant toward
the "people of the Book" (Christians and Jews), and toward Buddhists,
Shinto, etc. I have never, among the hundreds I have met and
interacted, had a threat of violence. Your fear-mongering is not a
manly way to address the need for greater tolerance and Enlightenment
principles within Islam, which in fact are being best addressed by
progressive Moslems.
I also strongly recommend greater familiarity beyond your simplistic
knee-jerk bigotry. Perhaps "Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and
Fundamentalism" by Mansoor Moaddel.
> >Nor, for Pete's sake, was pathetic, crippled Iraq even remotely capable
> >of having "the US on its knees".
>
> Nobody but you has even suggested as much.
You wrote:
> >>Indeed so. Since we *are* at war, and your preferred alternates would
> >>have the US on it's knees before an enemy that would happily kill *you*
> >>as a pagan... yeah, I can see some patriotism issues with you.
As I have supported the Afghan operation and actually played an
ancillary role in it, the issue of Iraq is the only thing in question.
But go beyond Iraq, if you like, and tell me which of my stances will
have the US "on its knees" before which enemy. To me, it is more of
your trepidation and quivering fear.
> >Didn't you call his service- Naval aviator in wartime, POW- merely a
> >"job"?
> >
> Nope.
Yes, in fact you did describe military service as simply a job,
repeatedly, as the record will bear out.
Eric
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
> Nevertheless, the Islamic culture *is* one to
> keep an eye on.
"The" Islamic culture? Is that like "The White Culture" that Jay keeps
talking about? (Psst- Islamic cultures are very diverse).
Eric
Doug Freyburger
> Scott wrote:
>
> > Better than the 10-year old non-Moslem American son of someone who had
> > his head sawed off live on Al Jazeera.
>
> NOTE: Al-Jazeera has never aired a beheading video, not even clips. All
> videos were posted directly by terrorists on their own websites, and
> Al-Jazeera has refused to show them.
Al-Jazeera is both a TV channel which has not and a
web server which has.
> NOTE: FOX News has. Repeatedly. As have several other American news
> outlets.
TV or web? FOX caters to squimish folks so as far
as I've seen they trim direct gore out of their news
in favor of discussing it.
> > >Of course, papier mache isn't the issue. Nor, if finger paint were used
> > >to send a message of religious bigotry. The message, not the medium, is
> > >my concern.
>
> > The message: those who idolize a particyualr violent, misogynistic,
> > anti-semetic and backwards book are fun to laugh at.
This approach is fair if and only if you're happy to be
laughed at for the same reasons. This includes using
identical criteria - violent, misogynistic, anti-semetic
and backwards. Being much more a techno-pagan than a
retro-pagan (if I read your attitudes right) you appear
to qualify on the violent and not the others. You
advocate violence towards those you laugh at. So you
must not mind Muslims laughing at violence against
non-Muslims. Maybe laugh isn't the best route, Scott.
I get the point that barbarians are to be resisted but
I'm too aware of how thin my own verneer of civilization
is to take it to laughter at folks laking even that
much.
> Actually, the message, as I understand how you've been treating the issue
> is: "Our culture is the only one worthy of respect. We are superior and
> they are inferior."
Missed point.
Pointing to a specific barbaric culture and identifying
the barbarian aspects is not the same as pointing to
every culture and labelling them barbaric. There are
plenty of cultures in the world. Some are deeply
civilized and are still potential opponents of the
west. Some are deeply civilized and are still active
partners with the west. China and Japan are good
examples that could arguably be listed on either side
of that dichotomy.
Scott's point is that Jihadists are barbarians. I
agree with him on that point. Bringing Jihardists
into closer perspective, Asatru has extremists who
are much parallel to Jihadists. My own complaints
that mainstream Islam is far too cozy with the Jihadists
is parallel to Eric's complaints that mainstream Asatru
is far too cozy with our own extremists.
There's a lot of the pot calling the kettle black that
is available but you've gotten the reasons wrong on
this one.
I offer an alternate perspective on what culture is
"superior". The strongest culture is. Right now that's
America in specific and western in general. Might does
make right on a large enough level. This sort of
"superior" comes and goes.
A weaker culture isn't neccessarily unworthy of respect.
Scott hasn't demonstrated disrespect for, say, the
animists in Chad who are currently being wiped out by
Muslim crusaders. What makes a culture unworthy of
respect is specific actions. Scot appears to lump
more of Islam than others here - The objection is to
the Jihadists. The Jihadists have done plenty to
actively earn disrespect. I disagree with Scot on
lumping most of Islam with Jihadists but with the
complaints that similar happens within Asatru my
disagreement is somewhat the pot calling the kettle
black.
> Take your racism off a.r.a.
Religious discrimination.
> > >As far as I know, no one but you has raised the issue of anyone being
> > >"protected from ridicule". What has been raised is the simple fact that
> > >such bigoted behavior is reprehensible.
>
> > Compared to what? There are lots of things people can spend their time
> > on. Having a little harmless fun at the expense of a death cult seems
> > pretty tame to me.
>
> Compared to Civilized behavior. THAT is the standard. The standard is to
> act CIVILIZED, not "We're not as bad as they are! Neener neener neener!"
If we're going to actually be superior then ridicule
isn't the path to take.
> > >Nor, for Pete's sake, was pathetic, crippled Iraq even remotely capable
> > >of having "the US on its knees".
>
> > Nobody but you has even suggested as much.
>
> You have. You were sayiing the country we are currently at war with had the
> capability to bring us to our knees and kill heathens with impunity.
Historical precedent - How long between the withdrawal of
inspectors/enforcers post-WWI did Germany take to become
able to attack other nations in Europe? About a decade.
How long between UN inspectors leaving and the US going
in? Well under a decade. The comparison is poor because
there was a lot less visibility into Germany than there is
into Iraq.
I see the war as two separate functions. Terrorists based
in Afghanistan send planes into buildings; Afghanistan is
conquered. Iraq just happens to have a cease fire treaty
in breach and just happens to be at the geographical
center of terrorist operations; Iraq is conquered using
its technicality. The linkage between the two isn't nearly
as clear as Iraq hosting Al Quaida training camps. Iraq
was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If Iraq hadn't
invaded Kuwait the ceasefire treaty would not be in effect
and they wouldn't have been available for conquest.
Did Iraq start it as Scott says? Err, yes, technically.
Did the US have to go in and take over in response to
violations of the ceasefire traty? Not particularly.
Any action that made sure Iraq could not start an active
arms build up would have been enough. Random cruise
missle potshots and oil embargo was a sufficient minimum
to acheive that end. Was Iraq available for attack as
Scott says? Certainly. They signed on the dotted line.
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
Good post, Doug. I think we've already established where we currently
agree and disagree, so I'm mostly just listening.
> Did Iraq start it as Scott says? Err, yes, technically.
> Did the US have to go in and take over in response to
> violations of the ceasefire traty? Not particularly.
I'll comment here to the extent that the ceasefire was between Iraq and
the UN. The UN did not authorize the 2003 US invasion, nor had Iraq
committed any violations since the imposition of the ceasefire which
constituted a lawful casus belli for the US. It is incorrect, even
technically, to say Iraq started the 2003 war or that it was lawfully
or technically an extension of the 1990-1 war.
Eric
lex...@ix.netcom.com
You betcha! If you ever see me using a book written by and for
technolgical savages to justify barbaric and stupid actions, I would
expect laughter at the very *least.*
> You advocate violence towards those you laugh at.
Incorrect. It woudl be far more accurate to say I advocate laughter at
those I advocate violence against. I *also* advocate laughter at
people, thigns and beliefs *not* worthy of violence. I laugh at my
share of Creationists, frex, but do not advocate violence against 'em,
as they are not themselves violent to any recognizable degree.
> So you must not mind Muslims laughing at violence against non-Muslims.
Why? I no more laugh at "violence against Muslims" than I do "violence
against Jews/Christians/Pagans." I laugh at some of the *beliefs* they
hold, and laugh at some of the individual things that happen to many of
the Jihadi terrorists. I mean, come on... how can you not find humor in
the Englund photos?
> ... mainstream Islam is far too cozy with the Jihadists ...
> I disagree with Scot on lumping most of Islam with Jihadists ...
Put those two statements together. If there are ten people in a room
and one is a murdering rapist mad bomber cattle-rustling square dance
caller, and the other 9 all know it... that other nine bear some level
of responsibility if they sympathize with the first, fund the first,
support and shelter the first.
> If we're going to actually be superior then ridicule isn't the path to take.
I disagree. Ridicule has a long and proud history. Perhaps I'm not the
most skilled practitioner, but I'm hardly in exclusively low-class
company.
> The linkage between the two isn't nearly as clear as Iraq hosting Al Quaida training camps.
The linking between Iraq and 9-11 done by the administration was
effectively this:
"On 9-11, we saw what happens when we let things slide. We can't afford
to do that again."
What those on the political left spun this as was: "Bush said Iraq was
responsible for 9-11." Now, on 9-11 itself and in the days after, Bush
was *very* interested to know if Iraq was responsible. But that's a
perfectly reasonable supposition.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
knee-jerk bigotry. Perhaps "Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and
Fundamentalism" by Mansoor Moaddel.
Try these:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003131.php
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman50506.htm
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
http://www.humanists.net/alisina/why_i_left_islam.htm
> you did describe military service as simply a job
And sometimes it is.
> This generalized smear against Moslems no
more brings justice to Moslems and non-Moslems killed by Moslems or
non-Moslems than did lynching a random black man bring justice to a
rape victim. It's not a major issue. Just disgusting like the neo-nazi
posts in a.r.a.
For this to be true, you would ahve to hold that a *book* is as
valuable as a *life.*
> As with the Texas Republican Party platform calling for a "Christian
Nation" and Creationism, many Moslems believe all other religions
should have a secondary status.
Important difference: the west has secular governance. Fundies can
bleat all they want, and they won't get their way in any meaningful
way. But the Muslim world... a very different story.
> tell me which of my stances will have the US "on its knees" before which enemy.
Not standing up to an enemy that has taken macho bullshit to an
all-time high. As Osama bin Laden himself pointed out in '98, the
appearance of weakness in the US emboldens the Jihadists. So, if we
don;t fight them, they attack us anyway.
> To me, it is more of your trepidation and quivering fear.
Your views of what constitute fear hardly matter to me.
liber...@lycos.com
> > I also strongly recommend greater familiarity beyond your simplistic
> knee-jerk bigotry. Perhaps "Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and
> Fundamentalism" by Mansoor Moaddel.
>
> Try these:
Yes, Scott, we are all aware that within Islam there are some violent
characters. We have had discussions here prior to your arrival in which
we have discussed inherent flaws within the religion to the extent that
extremists will find within inspiration. As extremists find such
justification within Asatru and most every other religion.
Yet the issue we are discussing is not that there are Islamic
extremists, it is that they are not in fact representative of Moslems
as a whole. The issue is your condemnation of the whole of the faith,
as with various bigoted comments and "humor". We do not judge every Jew
by the Stern gang, nor every Christian by Charlemagne or the Klan. It
would be foolish to do so.
Because I have long been an observer and visitor in Moslem lands, I
have no need of "Jihad Watch" to inform me of anything. Just as I am
aware that there are criminal gangs in America's cities, I know there
are radicals of all sorts within Islamic lands. Yet, becausde you can
make the woefully ignorant statement that there is something
identifiable as "the Islamic culture", and because you confuse
Jihadists (once armed and encouraged by the US, and now fueled by US
policies) with Islam, it would do you good to read such books as
Moaddel's.
> > This generalized smear against Moslems no
> more brings justice to Moslems and non-Moslems killed by Moslems or
> non-Moslems than did lynching a random black man bring justice to a
> rape victim. It's not a major issue. Just disgusting like the neo-nazi
> posts in a.r.a.
>
> For this to be true, you would ahve to hold that a *book* is as
> valuable as a *life.*
Not at all. I am able to see the difference, and yet my point isn't
"better than" or "worse than", it is the concept of group guilt where
the diversity and reality of that group- many millions around the
world, including American soldiers, including at least one high level
Bush Administration appointee- belies such collective guilt.
As regards the a.r.a. nazis like Jay, the similarity is close even in
terms of "better than" or "worse than". What's your stance on
anti-Jewish posts?
> > As with the Texas Republican Party platform calling for a "Christian
> Nation" and Creationism, many Moslems believe all other religions
> should have a secondary status.
>
> Important difference: the west has secular governance. Fundies can
> bleat all they want, and they won't get their way in any meaningful
> way. But the Muslim world... a very different story.
That's not as clear-cut at all, simply because representative
government means that popular opinions will gain a foothold.
Creationism has made its way into some schools, and certainly the
existence of "blue laws" and so forth indicate non-secular rules.
The rise of secular administration was a function of the aftermath of
Europe's religious wars and the Enlightment, but if you'll now listen
to the highly influential fundamentalists, the argument is moving in
the othr direction, and at the highest levels.
Certainly, though, this is a tangental matter as regards the childish
mockery of an entire religion.
> > tell me which of my stances will have the US "on its knees" before
which enemy.
>
> Not standing up to an enemy that has taken macho bullshit to an
> all-time high. As Osama bin Laden himself pointed out in '98, the
> appearance of weakness in the US emboldens the Jihadists. So, if we
> don;t fight them, they attack us anyway.
Since I supported, both verbally and in deeds, the attack on bin Laden,
again 1) which of my stances will have the US "on its knees"-2) meaning
what?- 3) before which enemy (which enemy is so strong)?
Eric
liber...@lycos.com
> on Terror ever existed.
"Yes... by the *Clinton* administration. "Regime Change" in Iraq has
been
US policy for quite a while."
You know the right is on the run when they fall back to "we're just
doing what Clinton did!" I wonder if Dubya has his eyes on any cute
interns (or if that's why Jeff Gannon had free-run of the White House).
I have some serious heartburn with Clinton Administration Iraq
policies, but the issue here is the 2003 military invasion. This is not
an option that the Clinton Administration pursued, and members of the
current administration were key in angrily- and unsuccessfully-
petitioning Clinton to do so in '98. They were also quite vocal for
many years in promoting and (poorly) planning the war.
I doubt that, had things "gone well" in Iraq that you'd be giving
Clinton credit, so how about distributing blame in the same way.
Eric
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
> > I disagree with Scot on lumping most of Islam with Jihadists ...
>
> If there are ten people in a room
> and one is a murdering rapist mad bomber cattle-rustling square dance
> caller, and the other 9 all know it... that other nine bear some level
> of responsibility if they sympathize with the first, fund the first,
> support and shelter the first.
And, of course, this has no relevance to the many millions of Moslems
who have no more connection to Jihadists than you have.
It was funny when Khaddafy established greater diplomatic ties with the
West a couple of years back, and pundits were saying, "We've finally
convinced him to oppose Al Queda". When, in truth, in the 80s the
Jihadists were funded and armed by Reagan who was occasionally
attacking Libya while Khaddafy was at war with Jihadists and at the
same time had terrorists of his own. For years Khaddafy had tried to
arouse the West against Jihadists, his own terrorism being of a more
Nasserist bent.
What any informed analysis of the world indicates is that support of
terrorist tactics is hardly limited to Moslems and is quite apart from
the overwhelming majority of Moslems. That, in fact, the West has
helped some such groups to rise and become a threat to Moslems.
> What those on the political left spun this as was: "Bush said Iraq was
> responsible for 9-11." Now, on 9-11 itself and in the days after, Bush
> was *very* interested to know if Iraq was responsible. But that's a
> perfectly reasonable supposition.
I really suggest you read Richard Clarke and have a look at public
statements made my the Administration.
Eric
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>>I also strongly recommend greater familiarity beyond your simplistic
>>
>>knee-jerk bigotry. Perhaps "Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and
>>Fundamentalism" by Mansoor Moaddel.
>>
>>Try these:
>
>
> Yes, Scott, we are all aware that within Islam there are some violent
> characters. We have had discussions here prior to your arrival in which
> we have discussed inherent flaws within the religion to the extent that
> extremists will find within inspiration. As extremists find such
> justification within Asatru and most every other religion.
Nobody posted it here, but the headlines a few days ago in the London Evening
Standard (London's only daily newspaper) concerned a govt report about Xian
sects indulging in ritual murder and 'witch' torture. Mostly Africans.
Unlike the Satanic abuse stories we actually have the bodies and trials to back
up the accusations.
FFF
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
lex...@ix.netcom.com
The issue isn't that there are some Islamic nuts, as all religions
have... but that the Islamic nuts are far more dangerous than those of
other religions.
> We do not judge every Jew by the Stern gang, nor every Christian by Charlemagne or the Klan. It would be foolish to do so.
Indeed true, because those things are of the past. It would, however,
ahve been fair to judge Christianity based on the actions of
Charlemange (and the acceptance of those actions by the rest of
Christendom) *during* the time of Charlemagne. It is thus fair to judge
Islam by not only the actiosn of it's *current* nuts, but also by how
these actions are viewed byt he rest of Islam.
> Because I have long been an observer and visitor in Moslem lands, I
have no need of "Jihad Watch" to inform me of anything.
Ah, well, then. Since I have long been an observer and visitor in
Christian lands, I have no need to hear anything about the dark side of
Christianity.
> What's your stance on anti-Jewish posts?
I dunno... what evidence do you have that the US is at war with a large
portion of Judaism?
> Since I supported, both verbally and in deeds, the attack on bin Laden,
again 1) which of my stances will have the US "on its knees"-2) meaning
what?- 3) before which enemy (which enemy is so strong)?
You would ahve us retreat in shame and defeat from a just war in Iraq.
This will embolden the Jihadis, and empower the Iranin theocracy and
Syrian thugocracy. Since they are on the brink of nuclear power and
stand ready to dominate European nations within just a few generations,
this will not be a good thing. You don;t win a war by shrinking away
from it and hoping it goes away.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
ERRR. Wrong. The right did not join a war on the side of Al Queda, as
Clinton did.
> They were also quite vocal for many years in promoting and (poorly) planning the war.
Yeah. Took the military *weeks* to defeat Iraq. That was obviously
because of poor planning!
vivent_l...@lycos.com
> > we are all aware that within Islam there are some violent characters.
>
> The issue isn't that there are some Islamic nuts, as all religions
> have... but that the Islamic nuts are far more dangerous than those of
> other religions.
If your focus had been on the Islamic extremists and not on Islam as a
whole, I might agree with you, though others may see greater threats.
The world is a dangerous place with many different dangers, and I'd
wager that the people of Belfast lose less sleep over Jihadists than
some other threats.
> > We do not judge every Jew by the Stern gang, nor every Christian by Charlemagne or the Klan. It would be foolish to do so.
>
> Indeed true, because those things are of the past. It would, however,
> ahve been fair to judge Christianity based on the actions of
> Charlemange (and the acceptance of those actions by the rest of
> Christendom) *during* the time of Charlemagne. It is thus fair to judge
> Islam by not only the actiosn of it's *current* nuts, but also by how
> these actions are viewed byt he rest of Islam.
1. Not only was Charlemagne of the past- your out in this analogy- when
he lived he ruled an empire and had easily the strongest military
force- which is where the "if then" part falters. Merge Bush and bin
Laden and you have Charlemagne. And yet, even so, it would hardly be
justified to judge all Christians even of his era by his actions,
except perhaps by the most simplistic observor.
2. It is foolish to judge any religion by its nuts. As a percentage of
the whole, Asatru likely has a higher nut-to-not ratio than Islam,
perhaps- perhaps- even a higher murderer-to-not ratio.
3. "How these actions are viewed by the rest of Islam" is meaningless
statement. Reactions vary from one end of the spectrum to another, and
where there is support for actions against the US it is often not
support for Jihadism per se but frustration with powerlessness against
Western policies. While the US was building Jihadism as an auxiliary
force in its struggles against the USSR and loosing it on the Moslem
world, Moslems were already opposing it. You are a Johnny-come-lately.
> > Because I have long been an observer and visitor in Moslem lands, I
> have no need of "Jihad Watch" to inform me of anything.
>
> Ah, well, then. Since I have long been an observer and visitor in
> Christian lands, I have no need to hear anything about the dark side of
> Christianity.
You certainly shouldn't need to be told that it exists, should you, and
certainly wouldn't learn much from sites which use the existence of
such a dark side to unfairly and foolishly smear all Christians.
> > What's your stance on anti-Jewish posts?
>
> I dunno... what evidence do you have that the US is at war with a large
> portion of Judaism?
How is this relevant? Is the US- with its Moslem allies, with its
Moslem soldiers, with Moslem public officials- at war with Islam?
If the US were at war with a radical Jewish group, would smears against
all Jews- allies, our soldiers, our public officials- be deserving of
religious smears? Would we be at war with Judaism, or only with the
particular group/variant? Would a papier mache Torah-pig be in the
offing, and synagogues burned?
> > Since I supported, both verbally and in deeds, the attack on bin Laden,
> again 1) which of my stances will have the US "on its knees"-2) meaning
>
> what?- 3) before which enemy (which enemy is so strong)?
>
> You would ahve us retreat in shame and defeat from a just war in Iraq.
I would have the US- now that war is long since unpreventable- adhere
to international laws to which it is a signatory (and often drafted)
and, since after more than two years our military leadership says there
is no military solution, stop enflaming resistance with an odious
occupation. The shame and defeat were preordained in the criminal war,
and those who ordered the invasion- empowered by visions of mushroom
clouds, with la-de-dah "analysis" that it'd make money not cost money,
that there'd be little resistance, that the war would take "weeks"-
already bear the responsibility.
> This will embolden the Jihadis, and empower the Iranin theocracy and
> Syrian thugocracy. Since they are on the brink of nuclear power and
> stand ready to dominate European nations within just a few generations,
> this will not be a good thing. You don;t win a war by shrinking away
> from it and hoping it goes away.
War is the great destabilizer. Jihadists have been emboldened by this
foolishness- it is their dream come true, as are those who would accept
their false paradigm of Islam against America, America against Islam.
The invasion of Iraq has already exposed the weakness of military
conquest turned to occupation, when even the weakest can resist the
strongest. Support for Jihadism has been strengthened. Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay, the bombs and devastation, the blood and the tears, the
arrogance and the cruelty have given power to Jihadist versions of our
collective guilt and character flaws, to Jihadist claims that
resistance is necessary and possible. Support for the US has faded in
the world, as so many of our lofty words are shown to be hollow and
false.
This is not- I think- the way.
Yet, somehow, I think my posts on the less-than-bustling newsgroup
a.r.a. have no influence in the process at all, so whoever it is that
you think is about to bring America to its knees, don't buy knee-pads
based on my posts. I'm a bum on a barstool, and a mover-and-shaker only
with the worst white-guy-dance imaginable.
Eric
vivent_l...@lycos.com
> If the US were at war with a radical Jewish group, would smears against
> all Jews- allies, our soldiers, our public officials- be deserving of
> religious smears?
Translation to English available upon request.
Eric
Doug Freyburger
>
> > > And one that was declared to be a future battleground,
> > > even before the War on Terror ever existed.
>
> > Yes... by the *Clinton* administration. "Regime Change"
> > in Iraq has been US policy for quite a while."
>
> You know the right is on the run when they fall back to "we're just
> doing what Clinton did!"
Chuckle. You know the left is on the run when they complain
about a Bush policy and then it gets pointed out that it is
a policy originating in the Clinton administration that didn't
happen to be changed by the Bush administation. The mirror
has two faces.
> I wonder if Dubya has his eyes on any cute
> interns (or if that's why Jeff Gannon had free-run of the White House).
ROTFLMAO
> I doubt that, had things "gone well" in Iraq that you'd be giving
> Clinton credit, so how about distributing blame in the same way.
I'm not sure about that in my case. Some are quick to comdemn
Bush and credit Clinton, some the other way around. I try to
credit both when I can. Clinton set a bunch of policies that
are now being acted upon. The results have been a mess.
vivent_l...@lycos.com
beyond bizarre. In Kenya people are being killed for reputedly making
people's penises magically disappear....I always picture a guy walking
along, then suddenly stopping with a stunned look and in a high-pitched
voice exclaiming, "Hey!"
As I noted in "Of Saxons and Striges" (in Vor Tru), about witch-fear
among the Saxons, and in an article I wrote about similar tales in the
Sagas (in Marklander), some things just go on and on, whatever the
religious wrapping.
Eric
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Some of these witchcraft stories from eastern Africa in particular are
> beyond bizarre. In Kenya people are being killed for reputedly making
> people's penises magically disappear....I always picture a guy walking
> along, then suddenly stopping with a stunned look and in a high-pitched
> voice exclaiming, "Hey!"
>
> As I noted in "Of Saxons and Striges" (in Vor Tru), about witch-fear
> among the Saxons, and in an article I wrote about similar tales in the
> Sagas (in Marklander), some things just go on and on, whatever the
> religious wrapping.
>
You only got half the story.
The biggest half was not child torture under the guise of witch hunting but
ritual sacrifice of specially imported boys for 'muti'.
Scott Lowther
>
>>
> You only got half the story.
> The biggest half was not child torture under the guise of witch
> hunting but ritual sacrifice of specially imported boys for 'muti'.
Ain't multiculturalism grand?
Post Colonial Boy
What was the exit plan again?
Nik
Scott Lowther
>
>>>We do not judge every Jew by the Stern gang, nor every Christian by Charlemagne or the Klan. It would be foolish to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>Indeed true, because those things are of the past. It would, however,
>>ahve been fair to judge Christianity based on the actions of
>>Charlemange (and the acceptance of those actions by the rest of
>>Christendom) *during* the time of Charlemagne. It is thus fair to judge
>>Islam by not only the actiosn of it's *current* nuts, but also by how
>>these actions are viewed byt he rest of Islam.
>>
>>
>
>1. Not only was Charlemagne of the past- your out in this analogy-
>
What? You might want to re-read things a bit. How can something be "of
the past" during the time it was "of the present?"
>2. It is foolish to judge any religion by its nuts. As a percentage of
>the whole, Asatru likely has a higher nut-to-not ratio than Islam,
>perhaps- perhaps- even a higher murderer-to-not ratio.
>
>
Maybe. But:
1: Our scriptures don't call for killing non-Asatruar - or, in fact,
anyone, so far as I can recall. OK, maybe dragons and giants, but I
don;t see to many of those.
2: We're so freakin' tiny that we don;t show up on any of the radar screens.
>
>
>
>>>What's your stance on anti-Jewish posts?
>>>
>>>
>>I dunno... what evidence do you have that the US is at war with a large
>>portion of Judaism?
>>
>>
>
>How is this relevant? Is the US- with its Moslem allies, with its
>Moslem soldiers, with Moslem public officials- at war with Islam?
>
>
Effectively... yes. Islam is in serious need of a Reformation. Until
then, it is a threat.
>If the US were at war with a radical Jewish group, would smears against
>all Jews- allies, our soldiers, our public officials- be deserving of
>religious smears?
>
If that Jewish group reflected the views of ten percent of all Jews...
I'd say it'd be fair.
> Would we be at war with Judaism, or only with the
>particular group/variant? Would a papier mache Torah-pig be in the
>offing, and synagogues burned?
>
>
That sort of thing happens now anyway. Look at what happens when
"Palestinians" gain control of Jewish holy sites, or even Christian
churches.
>
>
>>>Since I supported, both verbally and in deeds, the attack on bin Laden,
>>>
>>>
>>again 1) which of my stances will have the US "on its knees"-2) meaning
>>
>>what?- 3) before which enemy (which enemy is so strong)?
>>
>>You would ahve us retreat in shame and defeat from a just war in Iraq.
>>
>>
>
>I would have the US- now that war is long since unpreventable-
>
It's not just unpreventable... it's *won*. At least in Iraq. Teh
so-called insurgency is just a bunch of Ba'athist losers and foreign
jihadists trying to bring the past back.
>adhere
>to international laws to which it is a signatory (and often drafted)
>
>
We do.
>War is the great destabilizer. Jihadists have been emboldened by this
>foolishness- it is their dream come true, as are those who would accept
>their false paradigm of Islam against America, America against Islam.
>
>
Ah. And that's why the biggest terrorist even in American history
occured *after* the 2003 re-invasion of Iraq, is it?
Scott Lowther
What was FDR's exit plan? OH MY GOD!!! WE STILL HAVE TROOPS IN EUROPE!!!
Big Woody
> > You know the right is on the run when they fall back to "we're just
> > doing what Clinton did!"
>
> Chuckle. You know the left is on the run when they complain
> about a Bush policy and then it gets pointed out that it is
> a policy originating in the Clinton administration that didn't
> happen to be changed by the Bush administation. The mirror
> has two faces.
Exceeeeeept, of course, that wanting regime change is a radically
different policy from military invasion. Many Administrations have
wanted regime change in North Korea and Cuba as well, but a full scale
military invasion would be a pretty radical policy shift.
> > I doubt that, had things "gone well" in Iraq that you'd be giving
> > Clinton credit, so how about distributing blame in the same way.
>
> I'm not sure about that in my case.
One thing I have always liked about you is that your opinion is seldom
predictable, unlike many of us (in my case, predictability within
specific time frames, then a different predictability in another
period).
> Some are quick to comdemn
> Bush and credit Clinton, some the other way around. I try to
> credit both when I can. Clinton set a bunch of policies that
> are now being acted upon. The results have been a mess.
I'm also a critic of both. I think the RW very effecively manipulated
"triangulation". If you pull one corner rightward, while the other
remains stationary, the top also sides well to the right. I've always
felt that Clinton had much to answer for in foreign policy
particularly, but Bush is a dangerously radical departure even from
earlier RW administrations.
Eric
Big Woody
> The biggest half was not child torture under the guise of witch hunting but
> ritual sacrifice of specially imported boys for 'muti'.
It just gets worse.
Have you followed the story of the atrocities in the Congo? "We've
killed your male relatives and are having a barbeque. Would you like
some?"
Eric
Big Woody
> ERRR. Wrong. The right did not join a war on the side of Al Queda, as
> Clinton did.
Carter and Reagan both, Afghanistan, 80s.
> > They were also quite vocal for many years in promoting and (poorly) planning the war.
>
> Yeah. Took the military *weeks* to defeat Iraq. That was obviously
> because of poor planning!
The world's most powerful military did quite well. Credit the military
and military planning, not to mention lots of expensive equipment built
across several administrations. Wouldn't have mattered who was in the
White House.
The war continues, with the weak finding a way to resist two years on.
That's where planning has failed, contrary to all the rosy predictions.
Eric
Big Woody
move along so that we don't just dance in the doorway all day.
Scott Lowther wrote:
> It's not just unpreventable... it's *won*. At least in Iraq. Teh
> so-called insurgency is just a bunch of Ba'athist losers and foreign
> jihadists trying to bring the past back.
If it's won, I understand even less why you'd be worried that my
opposition to it would bring America to its knees.
If it's won, should the soldiers dying be buried alongside fallen
policemen rather than in Arlington?
> >War is the great destabilizer. Jihadists have been emboldened by this
> >foolishness- it is their dream come true, as are those who would accept
> >their false paradigm of Islam against America, America against Islam.
>
> Ah. And that's why the biggest terrorist even in American history
> occured *after* the 2003 re-invasion of Iraq, is it?
American history continues. Little boys in Iraq and Afghanistan burn
with desire to avenge their fathers and mothers, Moslems and
non-Moslems aroused at injustice and destruction simmer in violent
fantasies. Did Carter and Reagan foresee crumbling Manhattan
skyscrapers in the castration of Najibullah? History is a river that
flows ever on, and today's blood blends with tomorrow's.
Eric
Big Woody
> What was FDR's exit plan? OH MY GOD!!! WE STILL HAVE TROOPS IN EUROPE!!!
Has the "liberal media" been remiss in not reporting 1,700 American
troops killed in Europe and tens of thousands of Europeans since 2003?
Eric
Big Woody
> I'm also a critic of both. I think the RW very effecively manipulated
> "triangulation". If you pull one corner rightward, while the other
> remains stationary, the top also sides well to the right.
Actually, the top could just get lower, couldn't it? An even better
analogy.
Eric
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I have no real objections to savages being savages in their own country, only
doing it in mine.
Scott Lowther
> lex...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>ERRR. Wrong. The right did not join a war on the side of Al Queda, as
>>Clinton did.
>
>
> Carter and Reagan both, Afghanistan, 80s.
Sorry, no. AQ didn't exist at that time. But it did when Clinton sent
bombers after the serbs.
> The war continues, with the weak finding a way to resist two years on.
> That's where planning has failed, contrary to all the rosy predictions.
And what "rosy predictions" were those?
Post Colonial Boy
Idiot!
WWII *had* to be fought otherwise the Nazis would have got up front
and personal to all of Europe and beyond...Iraq was no such threat...
Iraq: America's 21st Century Vietnam...
Nik
Scott Lowther
> WWII *had* to be fought otherwise the Nazis would have got up front
> and personal to all of Europe and beyond...
It had to be fought by *Europeans*. But that didn't stop FDR from
illegally waging a stealth war against Germany.
Iraq was no such threat...
> Neither was Germany. A nation with no effective military, an economy
in the toilet, torn apart with internal strife betweenf fascists and
commies, suffering the aftereffects of losing a previous war. Germany
posed no threat.
Until they did.
>
> Iraq: America's 21st Century Vietnam...
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
The defintion of "Vietnam" sure has changed...
Vietnam vets in Iraq see 'entirely different war'
By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY Tue Jun 21, 7:19 AM ET
Browning, 56, of Paradise, Calif., and Weatherhead, 57, of Elk Grove,
Calif., are grandfathers. They first flew combat missions in Vietnam,
before most of the soldiers in the current Army were born. They and
others their age are here with the National Guard's 42nd Infantry
Division, which includes some of the oldest soldiers to serve in combat
for the modern U.S. Army. Few soldiers or officers in the military,
other than the service's top generals, are as old.
If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, these graying soldiers
and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective.
They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission
than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi
population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.
"In Vietnam, I don't think the local population ever understood that we
were just there to help them," says Chief Warrant Officer James Miles,
57, of Sioux Falls, S.D., who flew UH-1H Hueys in Vietnam from February
1969 to February 1970. And the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were a
tougher, more tenacious enemy, he says. Instead of setting off bombs
outside the base, they'd be inside.
"I knew we were going to lose Vietnam the day I walked off the plane,"
says Miles, who returned home this month after nearly a year in Iraq.
Not this time. "There's no doubt in my mind that this was the right
thing to do," he says.
--------
But what do Viet Nam vets know about it, when U-Boat Commander Ted
Kennedy says otherwise?
robert bowman
>
> It had to be fought by Europeans. But that didn't stop FDR from
> illegally waging a stealth war against Germany.
Didn't you recently declare the POTUS really doesn't have much power? Note
that I fully agree with your statement about that duplicitous, Anglophilic
weasel, but you don't get to pick and choose which presdents can carry out
their own extralegal agendas and which can't.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Scott Lowther
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>
>>It had to be fought by Europeans. But that didn't stop FDR from
>>illegally waging a stealth war against Germany.
>
>
> Didn't you recently declare the POTUS really doesn't have much power?
Indeed so. Nevertheless, FDR *did* break the law in his aid for Britain.
Doug Freyburger
Power and authority are two separable but intertwined issues.
In the US authority flows from the Constitution and from it
to the 3 branches of Federal government. Over time precedents
are set that gradually increase the power that can be wielded
by the branches.
Also, those in positions of authority often wield more power
than the bounds of their authority suggest. Do something
popular enough and you'll generally find folks willing to do
it illegally.
FDR was within his power but not within his authority to
Post Colonial Boy
<scottARG...@ATix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Post Colonial Boy wrote:
>
>> WWII *had* to be fought otherwise the Nazis would have got up front
>> and personal to all of Europe and beyond...
>
>It had to be fought by *Europeans*. But that didn't stop FDR from
>illegally waging a stealth war against Germany.
>
>Iraq was no such threat...
>
> > Neither was Germany. A nation with no effective military, an economy
>in the toilet, torn apart with internal strife betweenf fascists and
>commies, suffering the aftereffects of losing a previous war. Germany
>posed no threat.
>
>Until they did.
On that basis the US should militarily invade
>> Iraq: America's 21st Century Vietnam...
>
>BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
I know that I'm hitting my desired target when I get this sort of
reaction.
>The defintion of "Vietnam" sure has changed...
You're exemplifying deliberate misunderstanding...a dumb tactic if
ever there was one.
>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050621/ts_usatoday/vietnamvetsiniraqseeentirelydifferentwar
>
>Vietnam vets in Iraq see 'entirely different war'
>
>By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY Tue Jun 21, 7:19 AM ET
>
>Browning, 56, of Paradise, Calif., and Weatherhead, 57, of Elk Grove,
>Calif., are grandfathers. They first flew combat missions in Vietnam,
>before most of the soldiers in the current Army were born. They and
>others their age are here with the National Guard's 42nd Infantry
>Division, which includes some of the oldest soldiers to serve in combat
>for the modern U.S. Army. Few soldiers or officers in the military,
>other than the service's top generals, are as old.
>
>If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam,
The parallel that I'm making is that in both Vietnam and Iraq the US
Military is going to be stuck there for quite some time.
You also seem to be suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of some
great anti-west military offensive...that is just ludicrous...
Also, did you see this the other day, ol Saddam quite liked Ronald
Reagan...why was that eh?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=10331844
" Reagan and me, good,"' Saddam said, according to the article by Lisa
DePaulo in the July issue that goes on sale June 28. "
The 'real politik' makes me want to puke.
>these graying soldiers
>and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective.
>They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission
>than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi
>population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.
>
>"In Vietnam, I don't think the local population ever understood that we
>were just there to help them,"
<wry laughter>
My Lai...very helpful...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
"The soldiers found no insurgents in the village on the morning of
March 16, 1968, although they had been psychologically prepared for a
major attack. The soldiers, one platoon of which was led by Lt.
William Calley, killed hundreds of civilians – primarily old men,
women, children, and babies. Some were tortured or raped. Dozens were
herded into a ditch and executed with automatic weapons. At one stage,
Calley himself turned a machine gun on a ditch full of villagers. The
precise number reported killed varies from source to source, with 347
and 504 being the most commonly cited figures. A memorial at the site
of the massacre lists 504 names, with ages ranging from as high as 82
years to as low as 1 year."
and hence his credibility is destroyed.
>But what do Viet Nam vets know about it, when U-Boat Commander Ted
>Kennedy says otherwise?
Be specific please...quote and I will address it.
Nik
Post Colonial Boy
wrote:
I have to say that I'm pleased that he did though. The war in Europe
was *very* nearly won by the Nazis...imagine how different this world
would be had that happened.
Nik
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Not much different IMO.
We would have had a Cold War with the Nazis instead of the Communists and
Britain would have probably kept most of its empire.
Big Woody
> > Carter and Reagan both, Afghanistan, 80s.
>
> Sorry, no. AQ didn't exist at that time. But it did when Clinton sent
> bombers after the serbs.
Sorry, yes, that is where the organized network called Al Queda got
it's start, though the name (itself informal) was adopted later.
Psst, I was opposed to the actions in the former Yugoslavia.
> > The war continues, with the weak finding a way to resist two years on.
> > That's where planning has failed, contrary to all the rosy predictions.
>
> And what "rosy predictions" were those?
How about "weeks"? How about "it'll pay for itself"? For starters....
Eric
Big Woody
> > Neither was Germany. A nation with no effective military, an economy
> in the toilet, torn apart with internal strife betweenf fascists and
> commies, suffering the aftereffects of losing a previous war. Germany
> posed no threat.
>
> Until they did.
Yeah, yeah, everybody's the Nazis, yup. Sorry, bub, _anyone_ might
become a threat. Iraq was not, nor was that why it was attacked.
> > Iraq: America's 21st Century Vietnam...
>
> BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
> Vietnam vets in Iraq see 'entirely different war'
Some Vietnam vets....Others have spoken of those parallels which exist,
most notably an arrogant superpower held at bay by a much weaker
resistance. Without the support the Vietnamese enjoyed from the major
Communist states, and given the utter military predominance of the
US/UK, Iraq is, in some respects, a greater sting to that arrogance.
Eric
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
And the longer it goes on the more the US appears to be a paper tiger.
Both Iran and Syria know that the US can't do much to them while bogged down in
Iraq whereas it would be very easy for them to up the ante.
Big Woody
> Both Iran and Syria know that the US can't do much to them while bogged down in
> Iraq whereas it would be very easy for them to up the ante.
Commentators often made much of Albright's question to Powell about the
US military- what use is it if you can't use it? His reply should have
been- more than if you use it unwisely.
Krauthammer and his sort in the Administration thought that military
strength gave them the ability and the right to dictate "because I say
so", with the same sort of arrogance they apply in the US political
process but with bombs. Like many a bully, they ought to be learning
that when pushed into a corner and abused beyond tolerance, most anyone
can put up a helluva fight. Being strong rests on being right, being
just, and using that strength wisely, without hubris.
Did you see that China has placed a bid on a major US oil company?
Eric
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Clearly a hostile move in the Oil War.
Care to bet that they won't be allowed to get it?
robert bowman
>
> Did you see that China has placed a bid on a major US oil company?
Their imports were up 8% in May, too. Maybe they have the money for $60 oil,
but I don't know about the rest of the world.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Big Woody wrote:
>
>
>>Did you see that China has placed a bid on a major US oil company?
>
>
> Their imports were up 8% in May, too. Maybe they have the money for $60 oil,
> but I don't know about the rest of the world.
If I were running China I'd convert a good % of their $600billion into oil. Buy
it up and pump it down mines etc. Several years reserve. It's not going to get
significantly cheaper in $ terms.
Scott Lowther
>>>Iraq: America's 21st Century Vietnam...
>>
>>BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!
>
>
> I know that I'm hitting my desired target when I get this sort of
> reaction.
Oh, you're hitting it; you're just hitting it with Nerf. "Iraq = Viet
Nam" is a common fiction. Just because it's a commonly repeated idea
does not make it true.
> The parallel that I'm making is that in both Vietnam and Iraq the US
> Military is going to be stuck there for quite some time.
Germany: 60 years and counting.
> You also seem to be suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of some
> great anti-west military offensive...
No such implication was made. You're imagining things.
> Also, did you see this the other day, ol Saddam quite liked Ronald
> Reagan...why was that eh?
Maybe because Saddam made it up?
> and hence his credibility is destroyed.
Your hatred of veterans is palpable. </Eric>
Scott Lowther
>>FDR was within his power but not within his authority to
>>"illegally waging a stealth war against Germany".
>
>
> I have to say that I'm pleased that he did though.
And yet, a war to save some place *other* than Europe recieves your
impotent wrath.
How odd.
Scott Lowther
>>>The war continues, with the weak finding a way to resist two years on.
>>>That's where planning has failed, contrary to all the rosy predictions.
>>
>>And what "rosy predictions" were those?
>
>
> How about "weeks"?
Guess what: it took "weeks."
>How about "it'll pay for itself"?
And it should've.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Fortunately the wrath of the Iraqis is *not* impotent.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Big Woody wrote:
>
>>>> The war continues, with the weak finding a way to resist two years on.
>>>> That's where planning has failed, contrary to all the rosy predictions.
>>>
>>>
>>> And what "rosy predictions" were those?
>>
>>
>>
>> How about "weeks"?
>
>
> Guess what: it took "weeks."
True.
Now it's merely an ongoing 'police action' and only *seems* like a war tying
down 130,000 US troops. The casualties inflicted on US troops by 'insurgents'
are merely 'high spirits' or 'hazing'. <chuckle>
Scott Lowther
>
Your hatred of soldiers is obvious. </Eric>
Scott Lowther
> The casualties inflicted on US troops by
> 'insurgents' are merely 'high spirits' or 'hazing'.
If you say so.
Friggen' weirdo Brits...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Not of soldiers.
Just of invading soldiers in an unjust war.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
>> The casualties inflicted on US troops by 'insurgents' are merely 'high
>> spirits' or 'hazing'.
>
>
> If you say so.
Sorry - just quoting you on the torture and murder of those same 'insurgents' in
US captivity (actually, most likely just innocent civilians).
PSn
> > You only got half the story.
> > The biggest half was not child torture under the guise of witch
> > hunting but ritual sacrifice of specially imported boys for 'muti'.
>
>
> Ain't multiculturalism grand?
Obviously multiculturalism is the problem is Africa. That's your argument,
right?
PSn
<lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1119473216....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > we are all aware that within Islam there are some violent characters.
>
> The issue isn't that there are some Islamic nuts, as all religions
> have... but that the Islamic nuts are far more dangerous than those of
> other religions.
>
> > We do not judge every Jew by the Stern gang, nor every Christian by
Charlemagne or the Klan. It would be foolish to do so.
>
> Indeed true, because those things are of the past. It would, however,
> ahve been fair to judge Christianity based on the actions of
> Charlemange (and the acceptance of those actions by the rest of
> Christendom) *during* the time of Charlemagne. It is thus fair to judge
> Islam by not only the actiosn of it's *current* nuts, but also by how
> these actions are viewed byt he rest of Islam.
>
> > Because I have long been an observer and visitor in Moslem lands, I
> have no need of "Jihad Watch" to inform me of anything.
>
> Ah, well, then. Since I have long been an observer and visitor in
> Christian lands, I have no need to hear anything about the dark side of
> Christianity.
>
> > What's your stance on anti-Jewish posts?
>
> I dunno... what evidence do you have that the US is at war with a large
> portion of Judaism?
>
> > Since I supported, both verbally and in deeds, the attack on bin Laden,
> again 1) which of my stances will have the US "on its knees"-2) meaning
>
> what?- 3) before which enemy (which enemy is so strong)?
>
> You would ahve us retreat in shame and defeat from a just war in Iraq.
Because Iraq attacked us on 9/11, right?
> This will embolden the Jihadis, and empower the Iranin theocracy
Which definately could use the power, considering 50% of their youth
population is thoroughly anti-religious, thanks to said theocracy.
>Since they are on the brink of nuclear power and
> stand ready to dominate European nations within just a few generations,
> this will not be a good thing. You don;t win a war by shrinking away
> from it and hoping it goes away.
I think we should go after the two countries in that region that region that
ADMIT to having nuclear weapons, are NOT signatories of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and either directly kill civilians or have been
instrumental in the forging of the Al Queda network. Guess which two
nations I talk about, and you win a cookie.
PSn
> And yet, a war to save some place *other* than Europe recieves your
> impotent wrath.
>
> How odd.
We know how highly you regard the Muslims in Iraq, after all.
Scott Lowther
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>>
>>> The casualties inflicted on US troops by 'insurgents' are merely
>>> 'high spirits' or 'hazing'.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you say so.
>
>
> Sorry - just quoting you on the torture and murder of those same
> 'insurgents' in US captivity (actually, most likely just innocent
> civilians).
Riiiiiiiight.
<eyeroll>
Scott Lowther
Clearly, simple logic is beyond you. OK, I'll spell it out for you:
This sort of thing goes on in Africa: not newsworthy
This sort of thing happens in Britain: newsworthy
What makes the difference: this sort of thing happening in Britain,
where the existing culture did not do this sort of thing.
If this remains beyond you, seek your nearest grade school teacher and
see if they can teach you basic logic.
Scott Lowther
> I think we should go after the two countries in that region that region that
> ADMIT to having nuclear weapons, are NOT signatories of the Nuclear
> Non-Proliferation Treaty and either directly kill civilians or have been
> instrumental in the forging of the Al Queda network. Guess which two
> nations I talk about, and you win a cookie.
And what wars have these nations fought and lost, and agreed in the
armistice/surrender treaties to not develop nukes?
Scott Lowther
Clearly I have a higher regard for them than Nik and you. I would have
them free. You would have them enslaved.
Scott Lowther
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately the wrath of the Iraqis is *not* impotent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your hatred of soldiers is obvious. </Eric>
>
>
> Not of soldiers.
> Just of invading soldiers in an unjust war.
Uh-HUH. You mean like the Brits who landed in Normandy?